can you give us the weather conditions in June for the abovementioned places going back 10 years - you know, just so we are comparing eggs with
eggs, and not just throwing anecdotes around.

Sorry. The point of this thread is that the time for all those games is over -- though many still seem happy to play it, ignoring what is in front of
their faces. If you want to play My Statistic Is Bigger Than Your Statistic there are many who will oblige you. Count me out.

From about 1945 to about 1975, the northern hemisphere was cooler than the 20 century average (I belive that is 11.1 degrees celcius) in the northern
hemisphere.

southern hemisphere longer than that!

Therefore, within our lifetimes! not that long at all.

BTW - can you explain why carbon dioxide is affecting global temperatures now but did not do so for the first 95 years of the industrial
revolutionÉ

1) the rate of greenhouse gas being emitted from fossil sources then was much lower than it is today, and the accumulated amount wasn't that big.

2) it was affecting temperatures but the net change as a result of #1 was smaller than natural variation then.

3) Accompanying the industrial revolution and burning of coal (mostly) and others there was also an increase in particulates and sulfates (smog) which
are net cooling, but have a substantially shorter lifetime. These have declined relatively because of increased pollution control (they are hazardous
to health) and so the "global dimming" (which is really mostly "northern hemisphere dimming") is substantially less.

Mann's work has been replicated and extended many, many times and the same essential message comes through.

And in any case, the observation of temporary warmth from natural means does not preclude much more substantial warming from unnatural means, which is
happening now.

You understand that this is not based on just "we see warming now" and no other investigation of course. There is firm observations & theory
supporting specific, predictive physical mechanism, and a much greater observational fidelity and quality than in medieval times. If we had
comprehensive global data from medieval times available today, we could also figure out what specifically was happening then in substantial detail and
security.

Thinking that medieval warmth means that current changes cannot be artificial is ridiculous. It's like reading about stories about the "sweating
sickness" and other pre-modern narratives and diseases, and then using that fragmentary and unclear data to cast massive doubt on current medical
science based on known molecular biology and direct observations of pathogens and accuse physicians of global decades-long conspiracies.

Our most recent crystals suggest a warming relative to the LIA in the last century, possibly as part of the regional recent rapid warming, but this
climatic signature is not yet as extreme in nature as the MWP. The resolution of our record is insufficient to constrain the ages of these climatic
oscillations in the Southern hemisphere relative to their expression in the Northern hemisphere, but our ikaite record builds the case that the
oscillations of the MWP and LIA are global in their extent and their impact reaches as far South as the Antarctic Peninsula, while prior studies in
the AP region have had mixed results.

As for the MWP - now that it is back - is not to compare it to temperatures today in absolute terms. It is to demonstrate that despite catastrophic
warming, the effect on humankind was not catastrophic, as so many are trying to convince.

The same is true for the Roman Period.

To be clear, that means that there was hundreds of years when the global temperture was "above average" and with the confirmed Little Ice Age
presenting hundreds of years of continuous cooling.

Thirty years of warming may be "significant" as the casual reader would assume that this provides "proof" of AGW. This is sheer propaganda.
Significant is a mathematical term used in statistical analysis. Something may be "significant" mathematically and remain entirely insignificant in
terms of effect. The MWP lasted over 200 years!

It is this type of propaganda that disturbs me so greatly and leads me to believe the AGW is a hoax (that plus the fact that all government policies
developed to "combat" global warming are more directed to global income redistribution with money sticking to everyone's hands along the path). The
science may be as solid as it likes to be but when interpretations are biased and exaggerated, then the science is being cast aside.

Um. He used the same raw data which skeptics claim has been adjusted in order to show a warming trend. He started out, as a skeptic, trying to show
that was indeed the case. To his chagrin, he found that his own adjustments show the same thing. static.berkeleyearth.org...

I am saying that if this guy expects his work to convince anyone or to influence anyone, he needs to show it. The entire thing. Every number. how
its was altered from its raw state to its adjusted state and why. He needs to do more than say "Its ok guys, I looked at it and I am convinced".

I am saying that scientists claimed there was an increased rate of warming from about 1975 to about 1998. This caused alarm to scientists. Then the
rate of warming slowed drastically for over 18 years. The "pause" in the rate of warming has been alternatively denied and then dozens of possible
explanations were provided. Then the data was "adjusted" again and the "pause" was denied again.

Then El Nino happened and temperatures spiked. Some people call the spike in temperature to be caused by global warming and not just El Nino. Some
people claim that the change in weather from a strong El Nino was proof of global warming.

Heat Driven By Spiking Carbon Dioxide Levels At the same time that national temperatures were hitting new record highs, average carbon dioxide
levels measured by the Mauna Loa Observatory saw record rates of rise for the month. According to NOAA’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory, June of
2016 saw average carbon dioxide levels that were 4.01 parts per million higher than June of 2015. That’s a huge jump in the atmospheric
concentration of a greenhouse gas that rose by about 1 part per million every year during the 1960s and during recent years has risen by an average of
about 2 parts per million.

I am saying that if this guy expects his work to convince anyone or to influence anyone, he needs to show it. The entire thing. Every number. how
its was altered from its raw state to its adjusted state and why. He needs to do more than say "Its ok guys, I looked at it and I am convinced".

I am saying that scientists claimed there was an increased rate of warming from about 1975 to about 1998. This caused alarm to scientists. Then the
rate of warming slowed drastically for over 18 years. The "pause" in the rate of warming has been alternatively denied and then dozens of possible
explanations were provided. Then the data was "adjusted" again and the "pause" was denied again.

The heat was going into the oceans---some of the surface heat was being taken in because of new patterns from climate change.

Then El Nino happened and temperatures spiked. Some people call the spike in temperature to be caused by global warming and not just El Nino. Some
people claim that the change in weather from a strong El Nino was proof of global warming.

That is what I am saying.

And what you are saying is misleading. Of course El Nino contributes to fluctuations---but now it is upon an even and ever increasing base, and
that's why it's definitely hotter now than in 1998, which was a stronger El Nino.

El Nino is declining now, and yet the records are continuing to break.

Yes - the heat is coming out of the ocean and its likely that an El Nino will follow. How long do you think it will take for the ocean to heat up to
that degree again? Will records continue to be broken or are we in fact entering the cool phase of the 30 year ocean cycle of heat and cold.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.